Decision about Trademark No. 8642023“Signature Hardware”on Review for Cancellation
Applicant (Original cancel applicant): LG HOUSEHOLD&HEALTH CARE LTD.
Agent: Longtian IP Agent Company
The Against party: Clawfoot Supply, LLC
Agent: Beijing Zhonglun Law Office
The applicant applied for review on July 22, 2016 to the TRAB on the mark “
” of No.8642023 for they disagree with the decision of cancellation case of No.Y005088. After We (the board) received the application, in accordance with Article 6 of Trademark Examination Rules, a group had united to process the review, now the trial is done.
Trademark Office think that, the use evidence from October 16, 2012 to October 15,2015 (hereinafter refer to as designated period) that provided by the against party is effective, thus reject the cancellation. The review mark still effective be using in “Air conditioning apparatus, Extractor hoods for kitchens,etc”.
Applicant’s main grounds for review: the against party didn’t use the review mark in china effectively, and applicant has not seen the relative use evidence yet. In summary, applicant request to send the use evidence to them for check and cancel the review mark.
The against party’s main grounds for review: They will provide more use evidence to prove they had used it in designated period. In summary, request for use it continuously.
Applicant submit query on the against party’s reply: The against party never submit any evidence to prove they use it in designated period. In summary, request to cancel it.
Through checking relative evidence in Trademark Office, the against party submit following evidence: (copies)
1. Company Certificate and Translation
2. Certificate about company’s old name and its translation
3. Information on Official Website
4. Certificate on registration of resident representative offices in China
5. Supplier information
6. Product packaging and trademark label photos
7. Supplier order and shipper translation
We TRAB send above evidence to applicant, and they submit query in time: the evidence have flaws, it’s hard to prove they use the mark in designated period on specific goods. In summary, still request for cancel it.
After trial: Review mark applied by the against party on September 6, 2010, and be registered on September 21, 2011, designated use on Bath tubs, Taps [faucets] *, Extractor hoods for kitchens, Pocket warmers, etc. Applicant submit the cancellation for the reason of non-using in continuous 3 years. On June 27, 2016, trademark office made a decision, to reject the cancellation. Applicant didn’t satisfied with the result, they apply to us for review.
This case’s focus problem is whether review mark had been truly, effectively commercial used in specific goods on designated period.
We think that, commercial use of the trademark, refer to using trademark in product, package, container and trading documents, or use in commercial activity, such as advertising, exhibition, etc, for showing the trademark had been used on corresponding sign, commodity and user. The user either refer to the owner of mark, or other who had been authorized to use it. If ever has such kind of authorization, it should be proved that the relationship indeed exist. In this case, evidence 1-6 could prove there are supply relationship between the against party and supplier; Evidence 8 could prove they actually perform the order contract; and evidence 7’s photos could also provide some effect. Above evidence could prove the mark had been properly used.
According to Article 54, Article 55 of Trademark Law, we give following decision:
The review mark will be maintained in the goods of “Air conditioning apparatus, Extractor hoods for kitchens,etc”.
The party who refuse to accept the this decision may apply for a prosecute to Beijing Intellectual Property Court within 30 days after receiving the decision, and submit the copy of indictment to us simultaneously or within 15 days, or give a further notice in write form later.